Re: [homenet] WGLC on "redact" and "homenet-dot"

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> .alt may not need an insecure delegation.   It depends on whether anything under .alt is meant to be resolved using DNS.

Agreed ...what I was thinking was that .alt would have a secure delegation, and then the IETF could add an insecure delegation to home.alt

Of course, I may be way confused here, as I'm getting close to the boundaries of my DNS skillz.

- Ralph

> 
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Ralph Droms <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2016, at 4:56 PM, james woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> I would strongly prefer that we avoid the risks above by using a special-purpose subdomain of a gTLD owned by IETF. I don’t really care which gTLD we use, and if “arpa” is really the only reasonable choice, then so be it. However, I can imagine a world where the Working Group decides that “arpa” is unacceptable for whatever reason and decides that it’s better to wait until IETF has another domain with a better name. And I’m not ready to tell them I think that would be a very bad idea.
> >
> > Remember that if we allocated some subdomain like .arpa, we would face a different procedural problem with ICANN that would almost certainly take a similar amount of time to resolve.
> 
> Ted - I agree that a new SUDN (.alt? draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06) would face procedural issues, although not (in my opinion) with ICANN.  We have .arpa as a precedent and designating .alt as an SUDN is strictly an IETF matter ... assuming appropriate notification to and consultation with ICANN.  The point is that we have the procedure with ICANN in place, whereas an insecure delegation for .homenet has no such process.
> 
> One of the issues that (again, strictly my opinion) that has held up draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06 is the lack of a real use case as motivation for progressing a designation of .alt.  Perhaps now, with a name for homenet under .alt, we have both a use case and a generalized solution to motivate designation of .alt
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> >
> > From a process perspective, trying to get ICANN to do an insecure delegation for .homenet is actually a worthwhile thing to do; the challenge is that it introduces some substantial potential for delay and uncertainty.   So does your non-.arpa TLD idea, so from our perspective there is no difference, whether or not there may be some difference for the IETF as a whole.   We will almost certainly be visiting that problem space in the future.
> >
> > That said, if expedient is what the WG wants, .arpa is what’s expedient.   As I say, I am not leaning strongly in either direction.   I think that a strong argument for one choice or the other would either have to do with .homenet being technically better for some reason, or with the delay being unacceptable.   Right now I don’t think we’re under that kind of time pressure, which is why I’m not more exercised about the possibility of a long delay in getting .homenet delegated.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > homenet mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> 
>